Friday, November 07, 2008
Class in Class
One thing that I am realizing as I am teaching at a university very different from the ones where I went for undergrad and grad school is how much social class affects the class room.
I went to university primarily with kids of the proletarian edge of the middle class: I was at the far upper end of the class scale at both UC Irvine and Rutgers, but I was still from the same class (roughly) as my classmates. Â
Of course, at the time, I was more aware of class differences than the similarities -- while in school my relatively less well off parents paid me more mind and gave me less spoilage than was paid to and given to my classmates from more advantaged families, in college, compared with my classmates, my family was relatively privileged, translating to me having been given more (monetarily) and having less overprotective parents than my classmates whose parents had less money but more motivation to make up for that lack with overprotection of what they did have -- fine children.
But now I compare my classmates and I to my students and I see the similarities.  In broad outline, even if I was the relatively privileged son of an optometrist rather than the relatively less advantaged daughter of a drill press operator, we were all roughly middle class.  That is to say, all of us came from families where you had to work for a living but all of us came from families where, so long as you didn't Cheney-up big time, you'd at least always be able to put food on the table ... and even be able to borrow enough money to send your kids to a good (state, not private, maybe) college and not worry about how you'd pay the money back.
But many of my students are in a different place, which takes some getting used to. Â They have to graduate as they can't afford to stay in school nor can they afford to have spent all this money on college and not get a degree from it. Â But on the other hand, I don't want to let my guilt cause me to pass students who really haven't learned the material at a passing level -- it does a disservice to them if they go out into the workforce claiming to be college graduates who have passed course [X] if they don't really know the material from said course nor do they have the problem solving skills one expects from a bachelor of sciences/arts.
And their response to this? "Don't be so unfair Prof. DAS." Â Now I was used to this from the richer of my classmates in school who mistook their privilege for deserved accolades. Â But from my friends (and classmates in college ... and I am obviously going to model my teaching of college courses from how I was taught in college and what I thought worked and didn't work for me then -- but now I need to figure out what works for my, very different, students ... and before their evaluations sink my chances of retention!) -- we would never say such a thing. Â We were privileged enough -- in family resources, in brains, etc. -- to be the beneficiaries of life's unfairnesses ... but not so privileged that we couldn't even see our own privilege.Â
If ever we would use the "u-word" our moms would bark. Â And we would say "why the hell are you barking? Â I just said 'you are being unfair' and you respond by barking?" "yep ... I'm barking 'cause I'm just being a bitch and you are one lucky son of a bitch! Â Life's unfair, and you should thank your lucky stars that life's unfair, because it has rewarded you so much ... if ya wanna make life more fair, get involved, e.g. politically, in making it fair ... but quitcher beefin' mister!" and our fathers would chime in: "you want sympathy? Â look it up in the dictionary -- you'll find it between shit and syphilis".
But my students feel just fine using the "u-word" -- why?  because life is unfair to them: they do have to worry about keeping food on the table. They have gone to college to get a better life, but it's a gamble and if they loose, they cannot pay back the loans and they are royally done to as Cheney said unto Leahy that Leahy should do unto himself.
So how do I be sensitive to their concerns, not show my privilege too much that it makes them uncomfortable, while still making sure they are not being mollycoddled (as has happened thus far to some of them) as, once they do have that degree, people will expect them to function without being spoon-fed what to do (that's why they are to be paid more money once they have the degree, ain't it?)?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Tobacco Blogging
I finally am having a few minutes to think about my research (as I am starting to write grants), and during these fleeting contemplative moments, I am breaking in my (belated) birthday (as well as congratulations on landing a tenure track position) gift -- a Peterson pipe purchased by a dear friend of mine when he was in a conference in the home of his father's family and Peterson pipes, aka Ireland.  Now I am really feeling  professorial (wearing the junior faculty uniform of tan pants and a blue shirt, but now with a nice pipe!).
Anyway, since London SW1 no longer seems available, I purchased (appropriately enough for NJ, what with all the bears in this area and all) the C&D blend, Bow Legged Bear.  And boy is it good!  It's one of those Perique, Latakia and Cavendish blends I've loved ever since I mixed the remnants of the first pipe tobacco I've ever smoked (a lightly aromatic Lane Limited bulk blend) with Revelation.  But unlike many of the other fine C&D blends in this genre, you can't really make out the components so much as you get a very harmonious blend of (very mineral-like and also fermented) flavors, much along the lines of the sort of Chablis that I cannot afford. ;)
I just hope that since I've only a few fleeting moments here and there my less than optimally slow smoking (I'm only smoking 1/3 bowls at this point) habits are not going to ruin this nice new pipe (previously, I've only smoked cob pipes, so no worries ... but this one, obviously, I want to keep) ... of course, it may be problematic in the first place to smoke an English-style tobacco in an Irish pipe? ;)
Debate Thoughts
I was too busy preparing my biochemistry lecture for this morning to watch the debate, but I bet it was silly. Indeed, the post-debate coverage was very silly.
Nu? How did it sound when McCain kept talking about Joe the Plumber? Was it like with his talk about "the overhead projector" where it made him sound like he was talking about how "I was wearing an onion in my belt, as was the fashion of the time -- kids! get off my lawn!"? Or did the point come through? Â With the overhead projector example, the media didn't really report what McCain was talking about, but this time the media have given "context" so McCain doesn't come off as Grandpa Simpson here like he did previously.
In any case, either the media are carrying water for McCain by not reporting on how Obama responded to the Joe the Plumber (Joe Sixpack) claims or Obama didn't properly respond. I dunno about Joe the Plumber (he could be lying about something ... and/or the GOP is paying him off to say what he's saying), but the usual GOP game-plan is to get people thinking Dems. will tax gross income rather than profits.Â
Nu? How did it sound when McCain kept talking about Joe the Plumber? Was it like with his talk about "the overhead projector" where it made him sound like he was talking about how "I was wearing an onion in my belt, as was the fashion of the time -- kids! get off my lawn!"? Or did the point come through? Â With the overhead projector example, the media didn't really report what McCain was talking about, but this time the media have given "context" so McCain doesn't come off as Grandpa Simpson here like he did previously.
In any case, either the media are carrying water for McCain by not reporting on how Obama responded to the Joe the Plumber (Joe Sixpack) claims or Obama didn't properly respond. I dunno about Joe the Plumber (he could be lying about something ... and/or the GOP is paying him off to say what he's saying), but the usual GOP game-plan is to get people thinking Dems. will tax gross income rather than profits.Â
Conceivably a small business may very well be a multi-hundred thousand dollar a year operation (or even a multi-million dollar a year operation) so people are convinced that Dem taxes will affect them even if they don't. Obama needs to make it very clear (with some details about what exactly he plans to tax) that someone like Joe the Plumber is not going to get hit by Obama's tax increases (or, that if he is indeed making that much profit, why should he begrudge the commonweal?).  Instead of giving a loosey-goosey, "trust me, I won't raise your taxes" answer (which is, from what I can tell from the so-called liberal media, Obama said) -- which only signals to people that trusting Obama is the last thing they can do (which is why "people don't trust Dems") -- he needs to give specifics.  And specifically call the GOP on their "okey-doke" here.  Obama needs to challenge the GOP talking points head on and kill them rather than saying "trust me, I won't raise your taxes, only some rich person's taxes".
And btw, what's this naarishkeit about "countries that redistribute wealth always fall eventually"? Â Um ... and those that don't redistribute wealth last forever? Â A little bit of reading of the Book of Koheleth (about how nothing is permanent except Hashem and how everything has its time and place) seems in order here for a bit of perspective ... and, whaddyaknow? Â It's Sukkos ... and what are we reading? Â Amazing these coinckidinks? eh?
Of course, it seems also that McCain's big, witty zinger (which was indeed witty) leaves McCain open to attack. Â But does Obama's team have the obvious ad ready (it should only take about a day to conceive, test and produce, it's such an obvious rejoinder):
(voice over) Â McCain claims he is an independent maverick who repudiates the policies of his fellow Republican George W. Bush, but look at his record: he voted with the GOP, the party of George W. Bush (% of the time he did so) % of the time, including a vote (for/against unpopular vote). Â McCain says the Democrats shouldn't run against George W. Bush because McCain is not George W. Bush
(appropriate clip from debate)
We'll grant him that -- we have photographic evidence that George W. Bush and McCain are different people
(picture of McCain hugging G.W.Bush)
see the person being hugged -- that's G.W. Bush. Â See the person deferentially hugging George W. Bush. Â Which candidate is that?
(picture of McCain that looks like the crypt-keeper)
That one!
John McCain is not George W. Bush. Â He's just George W. Bush's lackey.
i.e. have a negative ad that links John McCain to George W. Bush, puts the "that one" quote and applies it to McCain and makes McCain seem effete (the deferential hug).
Unlike some, I am still not confident the Dems. will win this one unless they learn (finally) to play hard-ball. Â The McCain campaign is phoning it in at this point, but the Dems. still seem to be falling for all the old Rovian tricks. Â Let's fight to win for once instead of counting our chickens before they hatch!
*
Update: Judging by the CBS Evening News (which I caught on the radio on my commute home) and the free daily, it seems that Joe the Plumber is backfiring big-time.  The media are reporting pretty much everything (including unflattering pictures of McCain), although, of course, in such a way that the GOP will be able to scream about media bias and get people not to pay attention.  Still, CBS News even managed to carry water for Obama and make the argument Obama needed to make -- that Joe the (not) Plumber's hypothetical business would not make him rich enough to be hit by Obama's tax increases.  Of course, the media had to dutifully find something "murky" about Obama's plans to balance their criticism, but still ... the media aren't going after Obama like they did Kerry, so Obama has a chance here ... let's just not blow it due to cockiness about winning.
*
Update II: I notice Obama is running an ad (not quite as shrill as my suggestion, which is probably for the best) very much along the lines of my suggestion. Â Does someone in the Obama campaign read my blog? Â Maybe I'll get ponies for that? Â Or maybe it's just an obvious idea ... anyhoo, how are these ads playing with people who are not shrill, liberal partisan Dems like me ... anybody have any thoughts on that?
Friday, October 10, 2008
Kosher Labels
Where does one find those nice sticky labels that you can use to mark your dishes as "meat" or "dairy"? My lovely wife is not a meat eater, so she's basically had only dairy dishes accessible. But now that there are two meat eaters in the house, we need to have both sets of dishes out and clear distinctions between them.
They seem to offer these labels (which you can run through the dishwasher and they'll still stick to the dishes, etc) every so often at local stores, but otherwise I can't even find them online. Any kosher-folk out there know what websites to check?
They seem to offer these labels (which you can run through the dishwasher and they'll still stick to the dishes, etc) every so often at local stores, but otherwise I can't even find them online. Any kosher-folk out there know what websites to check?
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
More Commentwhoring
This here is my parsha blogging for Yom Kippur. I apologize and seek forgiveness for all I have offended via my lack of regular blogging ;).
Friday, October 03, 2008
Professorin' Is Keepin' Me Busy ...
... and out of blogging.
But I figured I'd link to formerly of the Big Media Matt's place where I just gave my $0.02 worth on our current pickle. Y'all (or now that I am back in the Northeast, I should say "Youse guys"?) will recognize some of the themes.
Meanwhile the Rabbi at my new shul gave a controversial sermon on what ails the conservative movement. And nobody's yet commented on our shul's highly contentious listserv? What's up with that? (If I have time I'll put links and maybe even my $0.02 worth on that ... but right now the shul's website is down anyway).
Update: link to the sermon in the comments.
But I figured I'd link to formerly of the Big Media Matt's place where I just gave my $0.02 worth on our current pickle. Y'all (or now that I am back in the Northeast, I should say "Youse guys"?) will recognize some of the themes.
Meanwhile the Rabbi at my new shul gave a controversial sermon on what ails the conservative movement. And nobody's yet commented on our shul's highly contentious listserv? What's up with that? (If I have time I'll put links and maybe even my $0.02 worth on that ... but right now the shul's website is down anyway).
Update: link to the sermon in the comments.
Friday, September 26, 2008
You'd Think It Never Rains in NYC
Why are New Yorkers so afraid of rain? They are obsessed with the possibility that, Hashem forbid, they might get wet. And when it's raining -- while still driving like jerks, they also at various points (where it makes no sense to do so) decide to slow down suddenly as if they don't know how to handle their cars on wet roads. The way traffic gets in NYC whenever there is any bit of rain (forget about snow), you'd think New Yorkers have lived in the Atacama all of their lives. WTF is up with that?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Quick Thoughts
* Obama gave an excellent sound-bite which was almost Rovian in attacking McCain for his experience. Kudos to Obama! More of this, please. And would it be too much to ask that next time Obama deliver a line like "McCain calls a meeting of 7 top lobbyists a staff meeting" with a bit of a chuckle (but not a big laugh -- it's a sin to laugh at your own jokes in the circles we're trying to reach here: think Ronald Reagan chuckle not Jon Stewart "can you believe this" chuckle ... the latter strikes some people as condescending and cocky) rather than in a strident manner? Couldn't Obama have delivered his killer line with a cadence more like Bill Clinton and less like Hillary Clinton?
I suspect what could have been the killer line of the whole campaign has been ruined because it seems that, like every Dem., excluding The Big Dawg, since Truman (including honest to goodness salt of the earth types like LBJ and JC), Obama has flunked Folksiness 101.
Come-on folks ... the reason why we Dems do poorly in Red 'Murka is that we don't make an effort to be folksy. Let's at least try a little (but without seeming like we're trying too hard). Think Ronald Reagan. Think Bill Clinton. Please, Mr. Obama -- you're lines are witty enough and you have the voice for it ... just look at their body language and cadences ... we know you can do what they did so well!
* (extra credit for guessing the relation between this point and the last ... rephrasing a slightly different post made on another blog, I forget which): it isn't that Americans reject the politics of class warfare. It's that the "proletariat" vs. "bourgeoise" politics of class warfare in this country are being waged by an aristocracy (and their "clerical" retainers in the media and the mega-churches) to their own benefit. Communism's class warfare assumes a prior death of the aristocracy and liberalism assumes unity of the bourgeoisie and proletariate. But what happens when neither obtains? Neo-conservatism, I guess ...
I suspect what could have been the killer line of the whole campaign has been ruined because it seems that, like every Dem., excluding The Big Dawg, since Truman (including honest to goodness salt of the earth types like LBJ and JC), Obama has flunked Folksiness 101.
Come-on folks ... the reason why we Dems do poorly in Red 'Murka is that we don't make an effort to be folksy. Let's at least try a little (but without seeming like we're trying too hard). Think Ronald Reagan. Think Bill Clinton. Please, Mr. Obama -- you're lines are witty enough and you have the voice for it ... just look at their body language and cadences ... we know you can do what they did so well!
* (extra credit for guessing the relation between this point and the last ... rephrasing a slightly different post made on another blog, I forget which): it isn't that Americans reject the politics of class warfare. It's that the "proletariat" vs. "bourgeoise" politics of class warfare in this country are being waged by an aristocracy (and their "clerical" retainers in the media and the mega-churches) to their own benefit. Communism's class warfare assumes a prior death of the aristocracy and liberalism assumes unity of the bourgeoisie and proletariate. But what happens when neither obtains? Neo-conservatism, I guess ...
